The era of loyalty depreciation: the football world reflected by the transfer market

"A greedy bastard" - Such a chant rang in the visiting team at Villa Park Stadium, and the fingers of Newcastle United fans were self-evident. Alexander Isaac should have expected such a scene.

When a player does not participate in preseason with the club, instead trains with his old club, and after returning, he clearly states that he will no longer play for the current club, he usually encounters this kind of treatment.

For decades, loyalty has depreciated in the football world, but Newcastle fans still have reason to be disappointed - just not long ago, Isaac was their beloved player.

However, to defend Isaac's actions or to explain why he has the right to force his departure, just look at another Nordic striker's example. The striker seems to be about to leave the Premier League club, but his situation is completely opposite.

Rasmus Hoylen has always expressed firmly before this that he is eager to continue to stay at Manchester United. Although the club had already made a noise at the beginning of the summer and was willing to listen to his offer, despite the strong interest of Milan and Inter Milan, and other giants, and although the club had signed Ben Yamin Scheshko for £66 million to fill his position, he was still unmoved.

Hoylen started twice and scored a goal during Manchester United's preseason tour, even received a separate praise from head coach Ruben Amorin. That night, the forward publicly stated that he would not leave no matter what happened.

However, in Manchester United's first round against Arsenal, Hoylen was not on the squad and his determination will be tested. Even though Cesco was only able to make a substitute in this 1-0 loss, Hoylen still failed to gain a place.

He was not included in what Amorin called the "bomb group" - Alejandro Garnacho, Anthony, Jaden Sancho and Tyrel Maracia and others have basically been isolated from the main players of the first team in the summer. The club said that these players voluntarily demanded to leave the team, but some of the players' camps objected to this. The way the club treats these "unpopular" players—including Marcus Rashford before loaning to Barcelona—is not an example of extracting value from the market. Currently, only Rashford left the team, and it was only on loan.

This summer, Old Trafford's management was supposed to improve its mediocre record in player sales, but failed to earn any revenue through permanent transfers, partly because no clubs are rushing to acquire these depreciating assets.

This is the purest manifestation of the club's control over the players this summer. Although Amorin said that if the four players still haven't left the team when the transfer window closed on September 1, their career at Manchester United is actually basically over.

After all, the club said when announcing that these players will train separately from the first team, to build a team that "focuses wholeheartedly on fighting for the highest honor for Manchester United."

Now, Hoylen may have reason to raise his eyebrows and question these words. He may be swept out earlier than players who allegedly “want to leave the team.” But then again, if the club believes that some players are no longer worthwhile, they have the right to send them away.

This is football—not so much a ruthless industry. Power is mainly in the hands of the club, and players can only be subject to the employer's sudden whims, although in the top league, they will be well paid for this "inconvenience". There is also a distinctive dominance relationship between

clubs. The higher the level, the better the situation, but only a few clubs can truly surpass most other teams. This summer, especially the farce of Isaac, taught Newcastle a cruel lesson.

This is the jungle law that preys on the weak. But Newcastle also used a similar advantage to chase Joan Visa, causing the latter to miss Brentford's first round due to future uncertainty.

However, Liverpool, Isaac's next home, is not the top predator in this ecosystem, as the Trent Alexander-Arnold incident illustrates this. Except for those clubs that really stand at the top of the pyramid (this height is probably visible outside the office window of Real Madrid president Florentino Perez), no team can find the perfect solution and can only make a choice.

So, while Newcastle and Brentford have the right to refuse to sell players, doing so has consequences: Leave a disgruntled player with no hope of reconciliation and reintegration, its record-breaking valuation of UK transfer fee may shrink during absences, resulting in millions of pounds.

Similarly, Hoylen cannot be forced to join other clubs, but he will have to bear the consequences of this choice: lack of playing time at an age that still needs to grow, and cannot guarantee a re-enter the starting lineup, and his career is likely to stagnate until January or even next summer.

So it seems that Newcastle, Brentford, or Hoylen, there is actually no choice. The same is true for Isaac and Visa.

No one would be surprised if Isaac leaves Newcastle, Visa leaves Brentford, and Hoylen leaves Manchester United in the end. But every participant in the transfer market, whether playing the role of a queen, a car or a soldier, must protect and maximize his own interests as much as possible - because this is what the market requires.